Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ncar!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!gollum!rolandi
From: rolandi@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM (rolandi)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: reinforcement in language acquisition
Message-ID: <83@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM>
Date: 31 Mar 88 18:38:52 GMT
Reply-To: rolandi@gollum.UUCP (Walter Rolandi)
Organization: NCR Advanced Systems, Columbia, SC
Lines: 29


In response to Arti Nigam's answer to Heather Mackinnon:

>Is it really true?  I assume you are speaking of language acquisition.  The
>development of the ability to speak grammatically and in novel sentences,
>and the ability to differentiate between grammatical and nongrammatical,
>seems NOT to develop as a result of specific reinforcement.  Most parents
>do not follow their toddlers around correcting the grammar of the utterances;
>they may correct their child if the child mislabels an object, they may
>pronounce a word completely that was half-pronounced by the child, but
>more often than not the parent will ignore syntax, or even reinforce
>faulty syntax by speaking 'baby-talk'.  Simple reinforcement does not 
>explain language acquisition.

This treatment of reinforcement suggests some of the more common misconceptions
about what reinforcement is and how it works.   But before I turn up the flames,
I would like to ask Arti Nigam to state the difference between "reinforcement",
"specific reinforcement", and "simple reinforcement" as referenced above.
Also, I would like to know if:

>Most parents do not follow their toddlers around correcting the grammar ...

is meant to convey that reinforcement in language acquisition is necessarily 
something that comes from one's parents.


Walter Rolandi
rolandi@gollum.UUCP 
NCR Advanced Systems, Columbia, SC
University of South Carolina Departments of Psychology and Linguistics